Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Fairlie

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Lakeville, MN USA

Recent Profile Visitors

942 profile views

Tom Fairlie's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. The entire front page can be viewed here: https://christchurchcitylibraries.com/Heritage/Newspapers/Star23Nov1963/PDF/ChristchurchStar23Nov1963-page01.pdf Jim: I agree that Hal Hendrix was likely the source of much of the early Oswald bio, but I don't get the connection to NZ. Was it that important to cover the English-speaking world with a cover story? I think we all know the answer. Does anyone have any other links to non-U.S. news that was too early? Stephanie: Thanks for the references. If you can find the timing of those stories or similar ones I would appreciate it. My curiosity pivots on what was available in the U.S. before 9pm CST. If American wires were running full Oswald bios before this time then anything is possible. Sadly, it seems that the 3:30pm CST broadcast of the Oswald interview on NBC may have provided sufficient detail. I will have to watch or listen to that. A brief review only provide half the details cited above, however.
  2. The Prouty/Stone assertion that the Christchurch Star broke the Oswald story sooner than possible always intrigued me. However, the lone nut theorists (DVP, JM) always blew this off and the paper itself discounted this (I cannot find the original citation). However, when I looked into this recently, the timeline does seem awfully suspicious. Here is a general overview: [Dallas time (-6 UTC) > New Zealand time (+12 UTC) and neither was observing DST in that year] JFK shot @ 12:30pm FRI > 6:30am SAT in NZ Oswald arrested @ 1:50am > 7:50am NZ Oswald charged for Tippit @ 7:05pm > 1:05pm NZ Oswald charged for JFK @ 11:26pm > 5:26pm NZ The paper's chief reporter allegedly said the paper was published "early to mid-afternoon" but the Saturday edition already has the following scoops: Oswald worked at the TSBD and was formerly in the Marines Oswald was married to a Russian and had a child Oswald defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 and worked in a Minsk factory Oswald then became disillusioned, so the Soviet Union gave the Oswalds exit visas Oswald worked for the Fair Play for Cuba committee I find this type of backstory amazingly detailed and doesn't seem possible without some type of FBI/CIA help. My question to the forum is: When did the newswire carry the story of Oswald's background? I thought this didn't break in the U.S. until late Friday or Saturday, which would make the NZ story somewhat impossible. However, if someone has evidence of a UPI or mainstream source that covered Oswald's Soviet and FPCC work before 9pm CST on Friday, Nov 22, please let me know. Thanks!
  3. In response to the OP, I do not think there has been a president since JFK that wasn't working for the Establishment. Some were pure creations of it (Reagan), some were willing participants who liked the power (Clinton, Bushes), some were too venal to ignore the pull (LBJ, Nixon), and some may have been able to rationalize it to themselves (Carter, Obama). However, all of them did the bidding of the Establishment (my general term for elite power brokers). The closest (I think) we've come to the "unaffected" president was either Carter or Obama, because they seemed to have their heart in the right place. However, Carter was a big believer in the Trilateral Commission, deregulation, and Islamic fundamentalism (Operation Cyclone), while Obama gave a complete pass to all of the mortgage crisis participants while killing thousands with drone strikes. Thus, we've been under foot for more than half a century. Honestly, it's been a century+ if you go back to the creation of the Federal Reserve.
  4. My interest in Gladio is based on my research into anti-Left organizations being set up around the world after WWII. This was a logical progression of setting up the Soviet Union in the first place. First, we created a leftist monster, then we created its Hegelian antithesis. Classic formation from these madmen. Along with Gladio and its ilk, came Phoenix in Vietnam and Condor in South American--kind of a wash-rinse-repeat scenario to ensure that leftists can't gain traction around the world. This sh*t has been going on since Hulagu Khan built a pyramid of skulls out of the educated people of Baghdad in 1257-58, and was perfected by the British in the 1800s (Cf. Lord Palmerston). As the British reached their zenith prior to WWI, they sought to build a "ring of fire" around the world, a pattern which has been constantly repeated since. More recently, we've shifted from an anti-Left stance to more of an anti-Islamic one, which doesn't make me feel any better. This started with our funding of radical groups in the 60s, the operationalization of concepts with Operation Cyclone in the 70s, then the increase in false flag terrorism from the 90s until the present day. To suggest that ISIS was spontaneously created by a popular uprising or that Iran is the new evil empire are just the latest propaganda efforts from our crooked Establishment. Gladio is thus a pivotal area of study, because it links the Cold War to false flag terrorism and urban/Left pacification.
  5. Getting back to Gladio for a moment, I do not understand why everyone is citing Ganser's book while no one mentions Paul Williams' Operation Gladio. Williams' book is well written, footnoted, and has pretty good pacing for a non-fiction book. It is also 1/4th the price of Ganser's book. With all due respect to Dr. Ganser, whose opinions I, for the most part, share, he comes across in his speeches a little too much like a "pop" historian, and tends to dodge the tougher questions. I'm not saying that addressing them head-on is easy or always appropriate, but to an American ear he's either preaching to the choir or skimming above the surface that needs to be broken. Williams' book, on the other hand, tells a fairly deep story without getting overly bogged down in a particular conspiratorial rut. Sure, the author has a religious bias (the disillusioned Catholic), and many of his conclusions are reached a little too quickly, but he also has a pretty solid narrative--something that most history authors are far too thin on.
  6. First of all, thanks for sharing the link to Mr. Drago's accusations. I don't know why I should travel over to his forum to respond to baseless accusations, so I'll just ignore them. Honestly, I think it's laughable that my penny-ante postings count as plagiarism. However, to be fair, I cannot claim to be original. My library has over 500 books, most of them written by people who know more than me. I'm just a knowledge integrator, which reminds me of a Twain quote: "When a great orator makes a great speech you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men — but we call it his speech, and really some exceedingly smail portion of it is his. But not enough to signify." I will say, though, that my library has nothing from Mr. Drago. I have no idea who he is or what he believes. If the above citation from Cliff is accurate, however, I have to chuckle a bit to think that JFK was a drug hit. I want to use this statement to pivot to some of Cliff's statements regarding the Cuban drug trade. You are wise to bring up this angle, and I agree that Castro's redirection was annoying. Some back of the napkin analysis reveals (to me) that the Cold War was still more valuable. I realize that I'm stretching a bit, but without the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam conflict doesn't quite seem as immediate (it's like the War on Terror without 9/11). For example, I see the bump in military spending to escalate Vietnam under LBJ/Nixon to be worth about $625 billion, while the loss of organized crime in Cuba was $60-200 billion at most (both in 2009 dollars). Both are very big figures, but war trumps almost everything. Plus, as you point out, it's not clear that the Mob lost that money, since Vegas came online and other drug routes came online quickly. To be honest, Cliff, you bring up a lot of good points, but far too many to provide a point-by-point analysis. I agree that there is an amount of randomness to the Establishment, since they are human after all. Also, you are right, there are factions within the powerbase that regularly vie for power/attention. The bottom line (to me, at least) is that the Establishment isn't a monolithic entity and much of their infrastructure grew organically rather than purposefully (for example, many rich people are simply taking advantage of their market position, family knowledge, etc.). However, it doesn't matter whether their system was intentional or accidental; it still has the same effect on humankind. ...and Snowden was a hangout, not a dangle :-)
  7. Cliff, With all due respect, I think the Establishment has avoided failure for more than a century. I can't think of a major activity that wasn't created or steered to help them achieve their ends. There may have been spontaneous events that were mostly out of their control (e.g., scientific inventions), and there have been many small events that they couldn't completely control (e.g., the election of Jesse Ventura), but their track record is pretty damn good. The strategy of tension, BTW, has been used for hundreds of years, most successfully by the British, who fomented revolutionary/radical thought around the world for 200 years in order to create chaos and distract the colonies and justify defense spending and controlling laws. Most recently, they (along with America) spent decades funding radical Muslim imams across Europe and Asia so that we'd have a boogeyman to deal with in the 21st Regarding Cuba, I realize that my theory isn't a slam dunk (e.g., why would the CIA spend so much time on assassination plots if the plan was to allow communism all along), but the facts don't fit the history books either. Cuba was always our poor little stepchild, and yes, we've exploited their resources and location heavily, but there are other places to launder money and gamble (Do you think the rise of Las Vegas at the same time was coincidental? It may have been.). I just don't see the Establishment losing if victory was so important. Cuba's communist transition accelerated the Cold War at a crucial time, when defense spending needed a boost and people were finally starting to reap the rewards of the post-WWII economy. Keeping us in fear allowed greater spending in Vietnam a few years later (Do you think it's a coincidence that JFK was killed after trying to amend relations with Cuba and the USSR?). For me, the bottom line is that taking out Castro and reverting Cuba to a capitalist playground would have been great for the sugar and gambling industries, but keeping the Cold War going was more critical for the big picture. Extra credit: The assassination training was far more useful to the Establishment than the simple, Cuba-focused operation that is widely portrayed--and which was, in fact, a limited hangout in the Church Committee.
  8. I think many people don't see these sorts of plots coherently, because they're overly conditioned to look at the existing hierarchies of known institutions and make too many assumptions. So far, Cliff has the best analysis in this thread in terms of thinking beyond these hierarchies. There is absolutely a hierarchy that exists invisibly behind known institutions, connecting them at certain points such that this supra hierarchy can effectively control them. I'm not talking about a star chamber of insidious plotters, but the people at the top of this hidden pyramid (e.g., Rockefellers) wield great power because they effectively control so many aspects of so many public institutions. After JFK took office, he presented a threat to a vast array of these institutions AND the hidden connections between them. Like a fly trapped in a spider's web, JFK actions and intentions against Wall Street, organized crime, the CIA, and the developing, post-colonial world, tugged on many silken strands and people like Rockefeller took great notice. Books from Gibson and Talbot do a good job tying some of this together, but they miss the hidden hierarchy aspects. The threat from JFK was so palpable, that connected members in these public institutions really didn't need excessive motivation to work together for a shared outcome. The military, the CIA, organized crime, and some industrialists all came together to eat the fly, remove the threat, or whatever metaphor you'd like to apply. The trick here is that it wasn't the Mafia, or the CIA, or the military that killed JFK; it was selected actors within these institutions that came together to enable and enact the plan. I'm sure there were people at the top who gave the green light, but I'm not going to name names in a public forum. The brilliance of the plan is that these institutions (the FBI too) all took action in the coverup automatically because they knew they were exposed and had to maintain appearances. Even though it was only select actors within these institutions that took action, one must also remember what the driving purpose of the the CIA and NSA were. These institutions were not created for the reasons cited in their official histories; they were created explicitly to protect the hidden hierarchy. If you look at their actions, their funding model, their ethics, and their successes/failure, you'll start to see that they were designed to maintain power and control for the Establishment. JFK presented a threat and the beast struck back. I believe that JFK knew exactly what he was doing and was fatalistic about it. However, I don't think he realized the extent to which the Cold War was essentially a scam. He knew it was a right-wing ploy that was designed to oppress leftist regimes, but I don't think he guessed at exactly how deep and how venal this plot was. The Cold War was created explicitly to demonize leftists (including Democrats, unions, liberals, etc.), create a Christian wedge in world religions, and foment the kind of tensions that demand military spending (similar to what the British used in the 1800s/early 1900s). I don't believe that the Establishment ever wanted to invade Cuba. The military certainly did, but the Establishment saw a communist/militant Cuba as a Hegelian wet dream right off our coast. The military didn't provide air support at the Bay of Pigs (not JFK), and the military didn't invade after JFK's death. Having a fake Cuban threat and a fake Vietnam threat provided the impetus for trillions in new defense spending (current dollars) even though nobody actually wanted to kill us. Tom
  9. Back to the OP for a moment... I don't believe anyone is focused on monitoring our forum. I do believe that the NSA (not the CIA) is vacuuming up all of the information here and is running a host of algorithms on the data, just like they do with every other information source. Keep in mind that the data they collect is probably about a million orders of magnitude greater than the staff they employ, so the only way to effectively manage this data is to employ sophisticated algorithms within a collection of sophisticated models. Only if some string of text is found that meets some exotic criteria will a human ever look at it. What most people don't know, however, is what the purpose of this collection and examination is. However, form follows function and if you look at the structure of the NSA, what they do, and how they do it, you may start to see that "national security" isn't the primary purpose. Tom
  10. I am a systems engineer by training and trade, with significant experience in telecom, defense, and medical devices. I am a part-time writer and history buff, with a personal library of over 500 non-fiction books on all forms of hidden history. I enjoy researching hidden globalist agendas, organized crime, and the historical flights of large sums of capital.
×
×
  • Create New...